scholarly journals Reviewing Regulatory Focus Based on Four Regulatory Forms

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Shan Athena Chen ◽  
Lien-Ti Bei
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Active Avoidance ◽  
Goal Pursuit ◽  
Regulatory Fit ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Weak Effect ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Goal Maintenance ◽  
Meta Analyses

This study employs the four regulatory forms (goal pursuit, goal maintenance, negative escape, and active avoidance) to illuminate the heterogeneousness among regulatory focus measurements and activations. The first two studies consistently found that promotion focus involves goal pursuit orientation; however, prevention focus encompasses a goal maintenance and a negative escape orientation. The regulatory forms were then applied to regulatory fit research to investigate how the matches of regulatory forms determine the effect sizes of regulatory fit. By meta-analyses, the weak effect in one third of regulatory fit studies, whose regulatory forms were mismatched or partially matched, decreased the overall fit effect and increased the heterogeneousness among regulatory fit studies. However, a strong and consistent regulatory fit effect was found in well-matched of regulatory forms. By examining and extending regulatory forms to measurement, activation, and regulatory fit studies, this paper offers further understanding of the mechanisms of regulatory focus.

Approaching the True Self: Promotion Focus Predicts the Experience of Authenticity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinhyung Kim ◽  
Kaiyuan Chen ◽  
William E. Davis ◽  
Joshua A. Hicks ◽  
Rebecca Jean Schlegel
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Goal Pursuit ◽  
Interpersonal Interactions ◽  
True Self ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Future Directions

Research on subjective authenticity identifies several psychological antecedents that seem naturally tied to subjectively authentic experiences. Four studies (N = 525) tested the hypothesis that a promotion focus (compared to a prevention focus) represents another shared antecedent of felt authenticity. Studies 1 and 2 examined correlations between self-regulatory focus and subjective authenticity in the context of goal-pursuit and interpersonal interactions. Studies 3 and 4 were experiments designed to manipulate self-regulatory focus and examine the effect of promotion/prevention foci on subjective authenticity. Across all studies, we found that a promotion focus (relative to a prevention focus) was a robust predictor of subjective authenticity. Implications and future directions are discussed.

EXPRESS: How and when does top management team regulatory focus influence firm environmental misconduct?

2021 ◽  
pp. 001872672199753
Author(s):  
Zhe Zhang ◽  
Mijia Gong ◽  
Ming Jia
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Top Management Team ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Regulatory Fit ◽  
Management Team ◽  
Top Management ◽  
Environmental Dynamism ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Listed Firms

Does top management team (TMT) regulatory focus impact firm environmental misconduct (FEM)? If so, how and when? Integrating upper echelon theory with regulatory focus theory, we examine how regulatory focus, as one of the most direct and important psychological characteristics of TMT, impacts FEM. Additionally, we explore how this relationship is moderated by external and internal environmental dynamism from the perspective of regulatory fit. Based on a sample of Chinese listed firms from 2011 to 2017, we conduct computer-aided content analysis to quantify TMT regulatory focus. Results show that TMTs high in promotion focus are more likely to engage in FEM, whereas TMTs high in prevention focus are less likely to misconduct. Moreover, external environmental dynamism strengthens (weakens) the positive (negative) relationship between promotion (prevention) focus and FEM. Internal environmental dynamism strengthens the positive relationship between TMT promotion focus and FEM. By examining this motivation-based psychological characteristic of TMT, the findings suggest the need to consider TMT regulatory focus when analyzing the antecedents of FEM.

scholarly journals Contents of hopes and duties: A linguistic inquiry

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh Ann Vaughn
Keyword(s):  
Social Relationships ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
Regulatory Fit ◽  
Positive Outcomes ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Linguistic Inquiry ◽  
A Current

People in a prevention focus tend to view their goals as duties and obligations, whereas people in a promotion focus tend to view their goals as hopes and aspirations. The current research suggests that people’s attention goes to somewhat different experiences when they describe their hopes versus duties. Two studies randomly assigned participants (N = 953) to describe a hope versus duty. Specifically, Study 1 asked participants to describe a personal experience of pursuing a hope versus duty, and Study 2 asked participants to describe a current hope versus duty they had. I analyzed these descriptions with Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2015. Consistent with earlier research on regulatory focus, participants wrote more about positive outcomes when describing hopes and social relationships when describing duties. The current research suggests that the effectiveness of common regulatory focus and regulatory fit manipulations could depend on participants’ freedom to choose the experiences they bring to mind when they describe their hopes and duties.

scholarly journals Promoting Water Conservation Based on the Matching Effect of Regulatory Focus and Emotion

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1680
Author(s):  
Xiaomei Wang ◽  
Lin Zhang ◽  
Xiaoyu Jiang ◽  
Jia Wang
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Water Conservation ◽  
Information Dissemination ◽  
Interactive Effect ◽  
Water Saving ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Matching Effect ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Cognitive Motivation ◽  
Willingness To Engage

This study aimed to examine the effects of regulatory focus and emotions on water-saving information dissemination. The findings revealed that when water-saving information is framed with a prevention focus, sad emotion fosters more active willingness to engage with the information dissemination than cheerful emotion. However, a promotion focus coupled with cheerfulness is slightly more persuasive than a promotion focus coupled with sadness. Furthermore, compared to the individuals in the nonfit group of emotions who had a regulatory focus, the individuals in the fit group formed a more favorable water-saving attitude and demonstrated a slightly higher willingness to disseminate water-saving information. This article is the first to contribute to exploring the dissemination of water-saving information from the perspective of the interactive effect of individual cognitive motivation and emotion.

Achievement vs avoidance

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 14-16
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Exhaustion ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Work Performance ◽  
Reading Time ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Pertinent Information ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies. Design/methodology/approach This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context. Findings The effects of a promotion focus, prevention focus, and a dual regulatory focus on work performance, sickness, and emotional exhaustion were investigated for managers and non-managers in The Netherlands. The dual focus relates more to managers, who have more complex roles and are called on to be able to act in flexible ways on a continual basis. It was tentatively found that a dual focus is not as beneficial as previously expected, and perhaps enhancing a promotion focus for managers and non-managers is more advantageous for an organization. Practical implications The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world’s leading organizations. Originality/value The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent, information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

Regulatory focus and learning

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (4/5) ◽  
pp. 425-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica E. Federman
Keyword(s):  
Informal Learning ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Learning Performance ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Learning Behaviors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Performance Success

Purpose The purpose of this study is to understand how regulatory focus influences informal learning behaviors. A growing body of research indicates that regulatory focus has significant consequences for goal pursuit in the workplace, yet it has not been readily studied or applied to the field of human resource management (Johnson et al., 2015). This is one of the few studies to examine the relationship between informal learning and regulatory focus theory that can be applied to the training and development field. Design/methodology/approach Using a qualitative research design, a semi-structured interview was used to increase the comparability of participant responses. Questions were asked in an open-ended manner, allowing for a structured approach for collecting information yet providing flexibility for the sake of gaining more in-depth responses. An interview guideline was used to standardize the questions and ensure similar kinds of information were obtained across participants. A typological analytic approach (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) was used to analyze the data. Findings In a sample of 16 working adults, (44% female and 56% male), participants who were identified as having either a promotion- or prevention-focus orientation were interviewed about types of informal learning strategies they used. The results revealed that performance success and failure have differential effects on learning behaviors for prevention and promotion-focus systems. Stress and errors motivate informal learning for the prevention-focus system, whereas positive affect motivates informal learning for the promotion-focus system. Prevention-focus participants articulated greater use of vicarious learning, reflective thinking and feedback-seeking as methods of informal learning. Promotion-focus participants articulated greater use of experimentation methods of informal learning. Originality/value This study provides an in-depth understanding of how regulatory focus influences informal learning. Few studies have considered how regulatory focus promotes distinct strategies and inclinations toward using informal learning. Performance success and failure have differential effects on informal learning behaviors for regulatory promotion and prevention systems. This has theoretical and practical implications in consideration of why employees engage in informal learning, and the tactics and strategies they use for learning.

scholarly journals The impact of challenge-hindrance stressors on creativity: the mediating role of regulatory focus and the moderating role of proactive personality

2021 ◽  
Vol 245 ◽  
pp. 03031
Author(s):  
Yixin Yang ◽  
Mingjian Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Proactive Personality ◽  
Regulatory Focus Theory ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Mediating Role ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Moderating Role ◽  
Focus Theory

Based on the challenge-hindrance stressors framework and regulatory focus theory, this study explored the mediating role of promotion focus between challenge stressors and employee creativity, and the mediating role of prevention focus between hindrance stressors and creativity. In addition, we further explored the moderating role of proactive personality in this model. In the end, we discuss implications and limitations of our argument for theory and practices.

scholarly journals The Effects of a University’s Self-Presentation and Applicants’ Regulatory Focus on Emotional, Behavioral, and Cognitive Student Engagement

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (23) ◽  
pp. 10045
Author(s):  
Elke Kümmel ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle
Keyword(s):  
Student Engagement ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Regulatory Fit ◽  
Digital Learning ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Self Presentation ◽  
The Public ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Digital Learning Environments ◽  
Clear Presentation

A university’s presentation of its programs to the public should provide potential students with information about what they can expect as students at that university. However, it is largely unclear what kind of self-presentation affects different applicants and their commitment. In a laboratory experiment with N = 116 participants, we examined the emotional, behavioral and cognitive impact of a university’s self-presentation (either emphasizing chances for students or emphasizing their obligations) on student engagement. We also measured the participants’ regulatory focus (promotion and prevention focus). We found interaction effects of the university’s self-presentation and participants’ promotion and prevention focus on student engagement. There was a regulatory fit for promotion focus in the chances condition for emotions and behavior. There was also a regulatory fit for prevention focus in the obligations condition for cognitive processes. We conclude that universities should dedicate time and effort to creating a clear presentation of their offerings in the implementation of digital learning environments.

Role of regulatory focus in the asymmetric perception of gains versus nonlosses and of losses versus nongains

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanwei Shi ◽  
Fuming Xu ◽  
Zhuang She ◽  
Peng Xiang ◽  
Hui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Perceived Fairness ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Outcome Fairness ◽  
Priming Task ◽  
Situational Prevention ◽  
Perceived Unfairness

We tested the effects of regulatory focus on the asymmetric perception of losses versus nongains and of gains versus nonlosses. In Experiment 1, situational regulatory focus was manipulated by a priming task and then participants evaluated the outcome fairness of different distribution scenarios. In Experiment 2, participants completed the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire and then evaluated the outcome fairness of various distribution scenarios. Results showed that: (a) The gains versus nonlosses asymmetry in perceived fairness was stronger with a situational promotion focus, and the losses versus nongains asymmetry in perceived unfairness was stronger with a situational prevention focus; (b) The losses versus nongains asymmetry in perceived unfairness was stronger with a chronic prevention focus, whereas the gains versus nonlosses asymmetry in perceived fairness was positive with both a chronic promotion focus and chronic prevention focus. Taken together, the findings demonstrate that a situational regulatory focus has more extensive effects than does a chronic regulatory focus on asymmetric perceptions of outcomes. These results offer insights for understanding the differences between chronic and situational regulatory focus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document